Josh In CharlotteNC’s Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

from the the-two-big-themes dept

If I had to define a theme for Techdirt, it would be something like: "Technology constantly evolves: get it, some don't."

So, first up for my favorites this week are stories about the ones that don't get it:

Working in computer security at a major bank (note, everything I say is my own opinion and should not reflect on my employer, just as the stupid things my employer does should not reflect on me), the top story that caught my eye is how the politicians trying to tell the country how to do computer security have no idea how to do it themselves. A far-reaching computer security bill needs vigorous debate among experts and policymakers, and slow, careful consideration. Having a few elected officials who know nothing about computer security rush it through is not what we need, nor will it make anyone safer.

A decade ago in college, I wrote a paper about the problems of faulty filtering and censorship systems, and the "Scunthorpe" problem, which was already well known at the time. So I was surprised that Facebook, one of the top tech companies today, still can't get it right, and was censoring comments involving a major newspaper simply because of a (defunct) domain name in the story. If we're going to have spam filters, let's not use them to censor news stories or discussions.

How publishers keep making the same mistakes the recording industry did is mind boggling. Basic economics might not be taught in elementary school, but you'd think it would be a requirement for any college degree involving a business major. Yet they keep on insisting on higher pricing (which will mean they sell less), while at the same time increasing their own costs and customer anger by putting in DRM. What this tells me is how intellectual monopoly rights are nothing like real property and we need to stop treating (and calling) them as such. Pop quiz: If you came up with a foolproof way for a manufacturer of a physical good to reduce their manufacturing and distribution costs by 99%, would the price to the customer go up or down?

But all is not lost, there do happen to be people and companies that do get it:

Kickstarter is now the 800-lb gorilla for raising money for just about anything, and it is only getting bigger. From smartwatches, to documentaries, to medium budget video games, if you've got an idea, you can get money to try to make it happen. How soon before we see studio budget movies and video games, or a soon-to-be-major tech company get Kickstarted? I'm thrilled to see this growth, as it shows that people are willing to pay for things and don't want it all free. And even when they can get something free, they'll still pay to support it. My favorite project so far: over a million dollars was raised to reprint books of a free webcomic, Order of the Stick.

Next up we've got a guide on how to beat a patent troll from Drew Curtis. In simple terms, make it so the troll winning is much more trouble than they could ever get paid to be worth it. Not exactly a new strategy, as we've seen it work years ago, but it is always good to have refresher courses.

And finally, some good news in politics from two stories: some politicians understand issues regarding the internet, while the public is becoming engaged and demanding "life, liberty, and blazing broadband." And from Austria, where a Pirate Party candidate won a local seat. These two stories should remind those of us in the US that our votes really do matter, and we have an election coming up in about six months. So don't waste your vote on someone who doesn't get it, and don't waste your vote on the "least bad" major candidate. Vote for someone who respresents your values, even if you have to write them in. That will really start scaring those politicians and their whole parties.

NEEEEEEERD!

Unfortunately, a minority of trolls and haters (similar to the ones here on TechDirt) are accusing him of taking the fans' money and only using 1/4 of what he raised, unaware (or flat out ignoring) that a good chunk was taken back by taxes. It also doesn't help that he decided to film in California.

Wasted Votes

I agree completely.

The only result of voting for a major party candidate is to buy in to the idea that there should only be two parties in the US. As long as they keep fighting each other, they aren't working for the voter.

I have toyed with the idea of trying to get people to agree not to vote for someone who takes money above a certain level. Why does a state candidate need more than a million dollars? [Amount up for debate] Why do national interests get to dump enormous amounts of money into states that have the first caucuses and primaries? [I am a resident of the state of Iowa.]

If a candidate is really appealing to voters, then he can get out and meet people where they live. And believe me, the rental rates for most community centers is in the hundred dollar range, not the thousand or million dollar range.

How about it, are you ready to implement some campaign finance reforms of your own, without waiting for Congress to do it?

Re: Wasted Votes

I've advocated flour electoral reform. We need people to fight the c. Umited decision, then push to revoke the 12th Amendment. After, we can push for better politicians instead of the facsists we have now. (yes, look at the merger of state and private interests. )

We have a lot of work to be done and it starts by recognizing and eliminating the problems of our electoral system.

Re: Re: Wasted Votes

Re: Re: Re: Wasted Votes

The 12th Amendment (ie the Electoral College) was a compromise with the states for the 3/5th clause in keeping and maintaining slaves. It fit with John Adams' view that we needed a strong plutocracy of governance with a higher emphasis on "states rights".

There are much better alternatives in picking the president than the EC and it's time to take a progressive approach to the Constitution. So long as we keep the EC, you'll never have a true democracy where the people have a choice.

Yes, the Constitution is wrong and it's been destroyed in the recent years. That doesn't mean that it can't be fixed. Just that we need to recognize the failings and move forward in allowing the majority a better say in how the country develops.

Re: Wasted Votes

Build the cells, what people should do is write their own legislation and start to develop those it is messy and ugly but which democracy isn't?

If you just vote expecting politicians to come up with all the solutions for you, you will not like what they will do, because it was not discussed or debated before hand and probably was written by an inner circle that doesn't have your interest or the majority of people in their minds.

Write the laws debated in public when they are done in public there is no lobbying BS, politicians are sock puppets they are not there to think they are there to represent people and at this point the only people represented are the people who write the laws for them and they pass it without even reading those damn things, politicians are not important, the process is not to elect somebody is to have something to hold the elected to it and that is to have the laws written in public and made available so others know exactly what they will vote for.

"Basic economics might not be taught in elementary school, but you'd think it would be a requirement for any college degree involving a business major. Yet they keep on insisting on higher pricing (which will mean they sell less), while at the same time increasing their own costs and customer anger by putting in DRM"

Let me tell you the same thing I have mentioned a few times here:

If they are screwing it up that bad, someone will come in and replace them with a better product, at a better price, that will make economic sense for both the consumers and the sellers.

You cannot force them to "do it right", because they are doing it right. If your ideas or concepts are that much better, then let new people enter the market, offer NEW products (not someone else's pirated products) in the new way, and let them prosper.

If you don't like the food, stop going back to the same shitty restaurant. Stop trying to go in the kitchen and teach them how to "cook right", just go somewhere else that does.

Until you guys learn this basic concept, you will always have headaches from banging your head against the wall.

Re:

The problem is that these companies have monopolies and large legal and lobbying budgets and they're very anti-competitive. They don't operate in a free market. They dominate their industries and crush the little guys with collusion and exclusive distribution deals.

Re:

If they are screwing it up that bad, someone will come in and replace them with a better product, at a better price, that will make economic sense for both the consumers and the sellers.

And that's what we see every day. Just because you will not acknowledge that piracy is direct competition to the legacy industries doesn't change the fact that it is, and it is beating them at providing all those things.

If your ideas or concepts are that much better, then let new people enter the market, offer NEW products (not someone else's pirated products) in the new way, and let them prosper.

So then the legacy industries will stop trying to kill off every product and service that legally is replacing them? They'll stop the insane rate hikes for streaming music and video services? They'll stop they're quixotic attacks on Creative Commons and open source software? They'll stop the intimidation tactics, and those that have the obvious appearance of falling afoul of anti-trust rules? They'll stop every attempt to bribe and corrupt politicians into passing laws that only favor them at the expense of free speech?

Doubtful. Until they stop all of those I have a clear conscious, even when I break the letter of the law.

Re: Re:

Piracy isn't "direct competition", it's disloyal competition. Piracy never wins outright, because when it does, the original product disappears - and thus the piracy side does as well.

Piracy isn't a replacement for anything. It's just a negative, destructive force being used to try to destroy something. I don't see a better business model, I see people trying to trash an industry, like looters in a riot.

"so then the legacy industries will stop trying to kill off every product and service that legally is replacing them? They'll stop the insane rate hikes for streaming music and video services? "

What you don't get is that if these new services keep depending on the legacy services, then they really aren't new business enough. Put out a video service that is 100% indie, or 100% through other identifiable sources, and they will have what is required to tell the legacy people to go away. But if they keep trying to use the content from legacy companies, they will be screwed and they will fail every time.

You cannot have a new business model that will really work when it is built on the old framework.

Re: Re: Re:

Quote:

Piracy isn't a replacement for anything. It's just a negative, destructive force being used to try to destroy something. I don't see a better business model, I see people trying to trash an industry, like looters in a riot.

Maybe not for you, but it is for a lot of other people, and how it is negative when you have real world examples of open source models that generate billions?

The only reason you can't see a better model is because you are blind, other had already seem the light.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, that means not dealing with the legacy players, not dealing with their infrastructure, not trying to make things support their products, their systems, or their rules.

Imagine a Youtube with nothing but "non-**AA" content. No more copyright issues, no more arguments, no more nothing - just content.

Imagine radio stations with only "new model" music, only new model acts, no copyright issues, no collection, no fight.

Imagine Megaupload with nothing but "new model" content. No pirating movies, because they would be giving away the new model ones that were freely given to be pirated.

Now you can wake up and realize why it isn't happening, because it would be you, Mike, and Marcus using these services, and everyone else would be off supporting the old business models that have the content they really want.

Until you get rid of the old models and the old structures, and offer a better product, it will be a losing battle, and one that only appears to have a hope because piracy is decimating the existing legacy players.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Quote:

Until you get rid of the old models and the old structures, and offer a better product, it will be a losing battle, and one that only appears to have a hope because piracy is decimating the existing legacy players.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

First even if Youtube made all content it still would have to deal with all the BS copyright crap about derivative works allegations and frivolous lawsuits so far from having a trouble free existence.

Second they are already doing it, but even if they weren't it is not important because copyright for all intent and purposes at the public level is dead, nobody cares and nobody respect it, and what can you do about it?
Nothing is what, you don't have the power to stop it and you don't even have the means or resources to even slow it down.

And your desperation trying to appeal to some lame moral excuse to try and make it look bad is just pathetic, because if you had any real power you would be demanding and punishing people but you don't and so you try to construct a reality where normal people are criminals and trying to convince them that you are right when you are just out of touch with reality.

I can't remember the last time I bought a DVD or a CD or go to a theater, I don't buy anything, I don't spend my money on you people you don't deserve it and if I want to rip you off I am fully aware that I can do it any time a want to and there is nothing you can do about it, absolutely nothing.

Either you go to the government and ask for more powers which they probably give you and it will make no difference to me or you learn to make a living without those ridiculous artificial constructs and work for a change instead of wanting to extract rent from others for work you didn't do and deserve nothing at all.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"First even if Youtube made all content it still would have to deal with all the BS copyright crap about derivative works allegations and frivolous lawsuits so far from having a trouble free existence."

Do you honestly think that is on the same scale as YouTube handling hundreds if not thouaands of DMCA notices a day?

Do you think it would be a little less expensive and painful compared with dealing with the Viacom lawsuits?

"I can't remember the last time I bought a DVD or a CD or go to a theater, I don't buy anything, I don't spend my money on you people you don't deserve it and if I want to rip you off I am fully aware that I can do it any time a want to and there is nothing you can do about it, absolutely nothing."

Yet I guess you enjoy the movies, the music, and the TV shows anyway. Typical punk ass pirate. I won't pay, but I want it, want it, want it. You don't understand, but that attitude is the problem, not the solution. You think you are making a stand but all you are doing is creating the justification for content owners to take legal action and to push for harsher laws.

If you don't want to pay for it (including legal free distriubution, such as radio), then stop enjoying the product. Either you are in or out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I can't remember the last time I bought a DVD or a CD or go to a theater, I don't buy anything, I don't spend my money on you people you don't deserve it and if I want to rip you off I am fully aware that I can do it any time a want to and there is nothing you can do about it, absolutely nothing."

"Yet I guess you enjoy the movies, the music, and the TV shows anyway. Typical punk ass pirate. I won't pay, but I want it, want it, want it. You don't understand, but that attitude is the problem, not the solution. You think you are making a stand but all you are doing is creating the justification for content owners to take legal action and to push for harsher laws.

If you don't want to pay for it (including legal free distriubution, such as radio), then stop enjoying the product. Either you are in or out."

NOWHERE DID HE SAY HE PIRATES A THING. In fact, he said, quite clearly, he does COMPLETELY WITHOUT. But he did note that if he wanted to pirate, he could and he would have no problem doing so.

Typical punk ass AC copyright maximalist. And his attitude is irrelevant to the matter. He's saying I don't want your product and I'll do without and then you and your type will say "Well, he's obviously a thief". Even when he clearly says he's not. That's part of the problem, and it is most definitely not solving anything. We could all do without and you and your kind will still find ways to justify trampling on our rights. Period. Nothing will be enough for you. Anyone who competes will be rundown by various laws, licensing "deals" and so on and so forth. In a free market, you can't compete. Simple as that. And sorry to say, but piracy is part of the free market and the customers do get to dictate terms to you. Without them and their money, you have no market. If you aren't meeting their demands or wants and needs and someone else is willing to do so, legal or not, right or wrong, moral or immoral, then that's just the way it'll be. You need to do what you aren't willing to do to compete, to stay relevant and to make money.

"Either you are in or you are out."

Ah yes, the ol' Sith "I deal in absolutes" mindset. And that is why at the end of the day you and your kind are going to lose regardless. You're unwilling to meet anyone halfway but demand others do as you say. And as is rather obvious as of late people are tired of you and your kind trying to tell the rest of us how to live, how to consume, etc. Your actions are blowing up in your face and you're too stupid to realize that you need to change with the times. The people have had enough, you need them more than they need you. So instead of acting like a dick, why not start trying to give them what they want and how they want it and at REASONABLE prices (notice I said reasonable prices, NOT free). We'll pay, and gladly do so, but if you're gonna be a dick about it... well, as the poster you replied to said, we can get what we want elsewhere if need be at no cost, and will have no qualms doing so as long as you keep doing what you're doing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"NOWHERE DID HE SAY HE PIRATES A THING. In fact, he said, quite clearly, he does COMPLETELY WITHOUT. But he did note that if he wanted to pirate, he could and he would have no problem doing so."

I don't spend my money on you people you don't deserve it and if I want to rip you off I am fully aware that I can do it any time a want to and there is nothing you can do about it, absolutely nothing.

I don't see anywhere that he says he does without. He makes it abundantly clear that he knows how to pirate, and would pirate anything he wants. He's about not paying the money when he thinks they don't "deserve" it, but he certainly doesn't say he does without the content.

"Ah yes, the ol' Sith "I deal in absolutes" mindset. And that is why at the end of the day you and your kind are going to lose regardless. You're unwilling to meet anyone halfway but demand others do as you say. "

Wow, talk about not getting it. I am not telling anyone to "meet me half way" - I am say that if your convictions are "I don't want to pay for your content" then the rest of your conviction should be "and I am not going to enjoy it either".

Your whole rant about "REASONABLE prices" is all about trying to make the music and movie industry do it your way, on your terms. Don't you get it? If there is such a big hole in the market, why isn't anyone filling it?

Stop trying to tell people who don't want your business how to get it. Start telling us where you get the "new" content instead. Support those with the models you like, stop trying to make other people do it your way.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't see anywhere that he says he does without. He makes it abundantly clear that he knows how to pirate, and would pirate anything he wants. He's about not paying the money when he thinks they don't "deserve" it, but he certainly doesn't say he does without the content.

Semantics failure. He could pirate if he wanted to. There is nothing in what Josh says that indicates he pirates. Matter of fact, if you were to look at his post history, it would tell you that he does not pirate. He just knows how to if that was something he was inclined to do.

Wow, talk about not getting it. I am not telling anyone to "meet me half way" - I am say that if your convictions are "I don't want to pay for your content" then the rest of your conviction should be "and I am not going to enjoy it either".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

He clearly says he doesn't spend money on you people. That pretty much says he does without because he feels you don't deserve his money. He then clearly says if he wanted to pirate something, he could and would have no problems doing so. But he doesn't state he pirates.

You're trying to spin what he said into him being a thief and having an entitled attitude.

Nor does he need to do without content. You are aware of the fact that there is plenty of content freely available from sources other than you and Hollywood and the big labels, right? Because there is. And a nice chunk of it is available using those same software and sites where the "pirated" stuff is. Vodo has some great stuff online and now there are artists being promoted through "apps" on things like utorrent.

You are indeed not telling anyone to meet you halfway. You're telling them what to do flat out.

And sorry to say, but telling the music and movie industries that we want reasonable prices is the MARKET/CONSUMERS exercising their right. You can price things any amount you want, we won't pay it. The market gets to tell you how to price things. That's how it works. That's how it's always worked. There are many examples in various related industries and the same two industries where they priced things so horribly people did completely without. When they priced things reasonably people bought in spades.

Why isn't anyone filling a hole in the market? Simple, monopolies. It's not easy to break in when you've got legacy industries lobbying for laws to give them one up on any newcomers, or when they bring suits against anyone who even remotely tries to compete or do something different. It's a big risk just trying to step into the new market, much less having to deal with their rather unsavory practices.

Stop trying to tell people how they can do things better and get our business? Lol. Wtf is wrong with you? Like seriously. You don't have my business, I tell you how to get my business and lots of other people's business and for some reason you have a problem with this? Wow. If you run a business I'm sure it's doing great. No way you would ever fail with an attitude like that. /s

And you see, you don't want us, the customers, telling you how to move forward or innovate or how to give us what we want. But you are perfectly okay dictating terms to us. You don't see the hypocrisy at all in any of what you've said? Because it's there and it's almost choking me.

We do support the models we like, as has been evidenced on this site. And that is dismissed outright or seen as threatening and stomped out as quickly as possible in some cases, by people like you.

The long and short of it is you want to tell us what to do and how to do it, but you won't accept our suggestions on how we can all win. Why? Stupidity/ego/etc. Take your pick.

But yeah, trying to get laws passed that will have an affect on the rest of us is completely not "telling others what to do". /s

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"He clearly says he doesn't spend money on you people. That pretty much says he does without because he feels you don't deserve his money. He then clearly says if he wanted to pirate something, he could and would have no problems doing so. But he doesn't state he pirates."

Are you claiming that he has not watched, downloaded, or enjoyed a single Hollywood movie or **AA piece of music, while avoiding payment in any manner?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I can't claim what he has or hasn't done. But yes, it is entirely possible to not have watched, downloaded or enjoyed a single Hollywood movie or RIAA music. Then again, it is possible to watch or enjoy a Hollywood movie or RIAA piece of music WITHOUT paying. You know how? By say, oh listening to the radio. Or by going over to a friend's house when they decide to have a movie night. Or by being invited to the theater and having someone else pay.

He says he hasn't paid and won't give you his money. That doesn't mean someone else won't pay for him or something to that effect.

I do like how your assumption though is he pirates it. As Jay pointed out, if you read his comments, and you can because he has the balls to stick to one name that can show you his previous comments (unlike say yourself), you'd see he says he doesn't pirate and prefers to do without.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And so do you brown nose, you know nobody on earth doesn't pirate, we are all pirates.

The copyright BS is so out of control that nobody can say they didn't pirate anything that is the whole point, soon people will be charged more because they laughed at something and called criminals because they didn't pay up.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So what dude.

Even if I am a pirate scum the fact remains that if I chose to not pay you I can do so and still get a copy of your precious and that is not going to change in the foreseeable future, what I do foresee is you wasting more time and money to enforce those laws which by the way are not cheap and according to yourself since you have no money and was trying to portray yourself as a poor hungry artist, you already can't afford to enforce anything, you don't get the money to pay for people to protect you meaning you are a nobody just like me LoL

Now why don't you just let go and work for a change, that would be a good thing, there is nothing you can do about, there is nothing others can do for you and I am saving you money unless you wanna spend like tens of thousands of dollars like studios do to "protect" each release, that is the price that DRM makers charge for each album or movie they protect and it is useless since even the most common players today can record that stuff, that is the why there are so many DVD's not "protected" because even Hollywood can't afford the DRM :)

I don't see that you have a choice here. Even if you somehow managed to stop all piracy, you still be a prick and I still wouldn't buy anything from you.

Now I want to tell you what I enjoy.

I enjoy getting old movies and changing things inside that movie, get to put new special effects on it just for the kicks of it, the last one I was violating was Wasp Women that I found on the Internet Archive, and using Blender(open source 3D software) I can track that movie and insert some new elements in it, you see I like puzzles and finding ways to update the special effects on those old public domains movies is just fun, I also read a lot of technical papers in every subject I can get my hands on, as for music the latest hit in my home is The Guild: I'm the One That's Cool Directed by Jed Whedon, Co-Written By Jed Whedon & Felicia Day and since everything appears purple on the flash player what did I did? I ripped off, is saved here, I know how to do it on HULU that uses the RTMPE protocol too and if I was to watch that crap I would rip it too, so I could get the right colors instead of using the flash crappy player, but instead I keep watching this Youtube: Paper Automata from which I devised and build a little vertical wind turbine that is attached to the most basic water pump the size of the base of it which sucks water from a bucket to another. which I can use to make a tower hydroponic grower powered by the wind. Youtube: UW grad student's hydroponic tower system grows lots of veggies, the recipes for the fertilizer I get from Wikipedia, for example the constituints of potato that is the recipe right there, I just have to look for all those ingredients elsewhere and put in on the solution and they grow beautifully.

I spend all my day thinking about how to make things, I steal from everywhere I can get away with it, and I am not ashamed of it, I am not that intelligent I need the knowledge and help of others to grow, if I was to imagine and discover everything by myself I probably wouldn't know how to make cord out of grass, bio plastics to make little gears, reduce iron oxide to iron again, use potash to make not only soap but to do metal chemical etching which I can use to make electronic boards or altaloid decorated cans.

What can you offer to me?
Can you beat the joy I derive from constructing something out of trash and making useful things for myself that cost nothing except the work I have to transform those things into some other thing?

Do you know how powerful is the feeling that I get from getting trash and transforming into something else?
I get waste food and transform into compost, I get an idea from paper toys and transform that into a wind powered water pump, I get old aluminum cans and melt them using induction heating and they float in middle air how cool is that? my melting machine parts came all from the trash I spent absolutely nothing on them, people throw away things because they get dirty, I learned how to clean them and salvage the parts, now I am learning how to produce those parts from scratch and all of that in my home, my food spending got down in half, my energy bill got cut, and I hope that I can learn how to produce the simple drugs, I can already do ethanol, acetone and some other simple chemical, but I am learning more and more, why would I waste my time and money on you?

You don't improve my life in fact your silly monopoly is what makes my life difficult, why would I ever support you?
You are not the air I breadth, you don't give me joy, my stomach revolts from listening to Metallica today and I was a fan, I love punk music maybe that is why I am so fond of steampunk art, but you dude, seriously what do you provide to me?
Nothing that is what and you believe I need you?
LoL

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You don't improve my life in fact your silly monopoly is what makes my life difficult, why would I ever support you?"

There is no monopoly. That is all in your mind.

Further, if you are not consuming the product, why would any "monopoly" get in your way?

I am sorry, but your arrogance and ignorance appear to have come together to turn you into the online version of a homeless guy talking to himself as he walks around town smoking other people's butted out smokes. You clearly have anger issues, and they are pointed in all the wrong directions. Any issue that exists with a "monopoly" is something you have created for yourself. Your entire life appears to be geared towards trying to kill the massive strawman you have built for yourself.

I recommend professional help. The first step towards a solution is to admit that your current situation isn't normal or natural, and that what you fear and what angers you doesn't really exist. Getting past that, you may be able to move on and have a normal life.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Are you stupid? Copyright is a granted monopoly for life plus 95 years.

No you are not sorry, you are an idiot trying to keep your monopoly going but those days are over idiot, they are not coming back and I will do everything in my power to undermine that monopoly.

Anger issues, nope I have none, what I have is a goal and that is to end those monopoly rights because they are cramping my style and to do that I just need to show everybody how useless and powerless you really are which is easy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And that is the case stupid, what do you thing the "exclusive" part of the law means?

It means for any good there will be only one distributor, for any movie there will be only that one guy that can sell it and will charge anyone who tries to do it,it means that guy gets to pick who is going to be his best pal.

Call it whatever you like, it is still a monopoly.

I have no choices, I have to get it from a source that Lucas authorize or else I don't get it at all, what do you think all those windows releases are for?

But who cares I don't buy anything from you people anyways, except for mandated levies all you get from me is the finger.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Piracy isn't "direct competition", it's disloyal competition.

Disloyal to whom? Last I checked I owe loyalty to my family and friends, and fuck all else. You want my dollars, you're going to have to give me what I want, or at least be willing to compromise. The entertainment industry isn't. Piracy is.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Disloyal to whom? Last I checked I owe loyalty to my family and friends, and fuck all else. You want my dollars, you're going to have to give me what I want, or at least be willing to compromise. The entertainment industry isn't. Piracy is."

When it comes to website A (selling legal content) and website B (pirating content and giving it away for a "download fee", example), the competition from website B is disloyal because it's using illegally obtained content, stuff obtained without cost and without risk. The legal website cannot compete with this sort of thing.

As for yourself, your points are nice, but they don't justify piracy. If you don't like the terms of the product, don't buy it and don't use it. Otherwise, you are just another lame ass pirate looking to justify their crimes.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let's look at your examples:

Google? They are playing middle man. Bryn was all uppity and pissed off when he realized that more and more companies are putting their content behind membership or restricted access walls. Why is he pissed? Because without other people's content, Google is NOTHING. Null, dead, and useless. Google makes their money on getting in the middle of your web usage. If they can't index and can't sort stuff, they are useless.

Facebook? Another one of those great sites that makes it's money off of unsuspecting consumers, conned into being content. Thankfully, just like Myspace, Facebook has a shelf life and will go away. They better get their IPO done soon, otherwise they risk becoming a groupon (who should have taken the 6 billion and run).

Both Google and Facebook are beholden to others for their position, and with those artificial supports removed, they cannot survive. They are very powerful today, but Yahoo was, Hotbot was, Excite was, Myspace was, Geocities was... and most of them are dead or dying.

They cannot compete in the long term because they don't have skin in the game.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

If they are screwing it up that bad, someone will come in and replace them with a better product, at a better price, that will make economic sense for both the consumers and the sellers.

Amazon has stepped in and is replacing them. The reaction of the publishing industry was to collude with one another and force Amazon to do it their way. Has it slowed down Amazon? Sure, but they are still well on their way to replacing the publishing industry. Other digital publishing services are taking over the market as well.

Re:

Re:

Quote:

You cannot force them to "do it right", because they are doing it right. If your ideas or concepts are that much better, then let new people enter the market, offer NEW products (not someone else's pirated products) in the new way, and let them prosper.

Yes I can, I hold the money, so I decide not them.
Piracy is not that bad once you get acquainted with it.
Besides piracy doesn't seem a problem for open source where people can copy, distribute, modify and sell it, so why damaging harmful protectionists measure to keep a granted monopoly are needed again?

Re: Re:

"Yes I can, I hold the money, so I decide not them."

It doesn't matter - you are a tail trying to wag the dog. They will go broke before they change - stop trying to change them. Support those who do it their own way, with NO connections to the legacy industry, and then you might have a hope.

If you keep thinking you can fix them, you will always fail. They may make you think they are doing it your way, but they are still the same leopard, same spots.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

quote:
"I don't think you get it, the dog is we not you nor artists, we are the majority, we hold the money, we decide where to spend it and to whom to give it and you are trying to force us to pay you?"

That's a nonsense.
You decide not to pay me buying choosing another product. You don't get to choose my product then not pay me.
The last post is right. Create an alternative product that is free. Beautiful. I can sign up for that.
Don't actually consume the legacy product and imagine you're a new thinker just because you didn't pay for it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Nope I decide whatever I want, I am the one with the power to rip you off, I am the one with the money you want, I am the one setting the rules not you and not the government, no matter how much you moan about it, I am in control here you are not.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You seem to miss a very important point here: your money is lost when we decide not to pay you.

Period.

After that point, what matters is if we go to the competition, decide not to consume any product, or obtain your product through infringement.

If we go to the competition, you have lost our dollars and your "opponent" has gained them. If we decide not to consume, we spend our dollars in an entirely different manner.

However, if we pirate, you have lost our dollars, but not our support.

Frankly, you should pay attention to the pirates, not as enemies, but as potential customers. Every movie they watch illicitly is a movie that, under different circumstances, they would have given you money for.

Yes, some pirates are completely unwilling to give you money, ever. Ignore them. Your efforts to punish them are futile because, even if you succeed, you will never see their money. They will feel no remorse, and will learn no "lesson".

The others are fertile ground, though. Just try to see what they want.
Are they pirating because you have decided to enact release windows based on geography? Don't do that.
Did they pirate because you waited too long to release your product to homes? Don't do that.
Are they pirates because you priced your product at it's weight in gold, when it's really just worth a watch? Don't do that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You seem to miss a very important point here: your money is lost when we decide not to pay you.

Period."

You are still missing the point.

If they don't want to do it your way, if they don't want to deliver the content in the manner and at the price you don't want, then don't buy. Yes, the money is "lost" to them, but the only way they go away is like that. Trying to beat them on the head to do it your way isn't going to work.

You are trying to sell them on change. They aren't going to change. Wake up. If the new business models are so freaking good, they would be tripping over themselves to get there. The reality? Nobody is there. Why?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I am not a pirate, I am in favor of people paying for the art that they consume since that is my day job, and I FULLY back the statement below.

When Netflix doesn't have the movie I want because it was pulled due to an expired license, or it was never on Netflix because the licensor will not license it to the service, I try the library or my local video store (both of which, by the way, are one-sale situations for the licensor, instead of on-going ones like Netflix). After that, I give up and find something else to do with my time.

"Every movie they watch illicitly is a movie that, under different circumstances, they would have given you money for.

Yes, some pirates are completely unwilling to give you money, ever. Ignore them. Your efforts to punish them are futile because, even if you succeed, you will never see their money. They will feel no remorse, and will learn no "lesson".

The others are fertile ground, though. Just try to see what they want.
Are they pirating because you have decided to enact release windows based on geography? Don't do that.
Did they pirate because you waited too long to release your product to homes? Don't do that.
Are they pirates because you priced your product at it's weight in gold, when it's really just worth a watch? Don't do that."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Yes, some pirates are completely unwilling to give you money, ever. Ignore them. Your efforts to punish them are futile because, even if you succeed, you will never see their money. They will feel no remorse, and will learn no "lesson"."

This is a massively failing mentality.

The point of going after a pirate isn't to suddenly get them to pay, as much as to get them to stop poisoning your current paying customer pool by "teaching" them it's free. Open and public piracy is a grand lesson in mob mentality, in "what can I get away with when I have the cover of millions of others". If you simplistically think that stopping piracy is to get the pirate to suddenly pay, then you have fallen for one of the big pirate strawmen (and yes, a big Techdirt strawman too).

"Are they pirating because you have decided to enact release windows based on geography? Don't do that."

See discussions about grey markets, about regional pricing issues, about local laws, about packaging laws, language requirements, local distribution rules, and thousands of other things. "don't do that" is a simplistic answer to something that is huge.

"Did they pirate because you waited too long to release your product to homes? Don't do that."

Since most pirates seem willing to watch shaky hand held cam footage recording of a first run movie, or have no qualms about watching an unreleased / incomplete version of a movie, it's hard to say this would matter. Most movies are released to home in a pretty short time after their movie release (less than 6 months), and often the home version in the US is out in only 3 or 4 months. Remember, a good movie might run 2 months in theaters alone (at $10 a ticket), why would they want to hurt that business to rush to sell a DVD?

"Are they pirates because you priced your product at it's weight in gold, when it's really just worth a watch? Don't do that."

Considering that most movies are released these days is about the $15 - $18 range, and can be obtained through various services as rentals for about $1, or seen on PPV for a few dollars, price really shouldn't be an issue. If the movie isn't worth $1 to you, perhaps you should just move on. Pirating it because it's not worth it smacks of self-justification. I know what a couple of hours of my time is worth, and it's more than $1.

Pirates justify like mad. They blame the system for not giving them what they want, when they want, and at a price they want, regardless if any of those things makes any sense at all beyond their own wants. In business terms, it's like trying to satisfy a 2 year old baby who really wants something and cannot or will not understand why it is not possible or reasonable to ask for. There is no positive outcome.

Drop the price, shorten the delivery windows, release worldwide at the same moment for everything, and they would justify piracy because the cover art on the box isn't pretty enough. It will always be something. "you will never see their money. They will feel no remorse" are your words, and they are true. No matter how much the movie industry would do to meet them half way, nothing would change their mentality. It's a losing battle to try to cater to the entertainment terrorists. You give them what they want, and they will just come up with 10 more demands. What good is that?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The point of going after a pirate isn't to suddenly get them to pay, as much as to get them to stop poisoning your current paying customer pool by "teaching" them it's free. Open and public piracy is a grand lesson in mob mentality, in "what can I get away with when I have the cover of millions of others". If you simplistically think that stopping piracy is to get the pirate to suddenly pay, then you have fallen for one of the big pirate strawmen (and yes, a big Techdirt strawman too)

10 years of going after Pirate Bay. What has it done other than make the site more resilient to take down? Oh yeah, even *more* people go to the Pirate Bay. Google shut down autocomplete for Pirate Bay. People now use "The Pirate Bay" as their top link.

Great strawman marred in truth. Keep fighting that windmill.

"don't do that" is a simplistic answer to something that is huge.

Excellent dodge. How about answering the question presented instead of BS answers?

. Most movies are released to home in a pretty short time after their movie release (less than 6 months), and often the home version in the US is out in only 3 or 4 months. Remember, a good movie might run 2 months in theaters alone (at $10 a ticket), why would they want to hurt that business to rush to sell a DVD?

Considering that most movies are released these days is about the $15 - $18 range, and can be obtained through various services as rentals for about $1, or seen on PPV for a few dollars, price really shouldn't be an issue.

Price is not an issue. Value is. Also, there are less people inclined to pay $20 for a DVD with no extras now that Hulu and Netflix have shown the effectiveness of streaming.

. Pirating it because it's not worth it smacks of self-justification.

Just to help you out, if someone doesn't know about the movie, they probably haven't pirated it. They probably never watched it. You seem intent on always placing those that don't watch something as somehow pirating it. You should stop doing that.

Pirates justify like mad.

Look in the mirror.

They blame the system for not giving them what they want, when they want, and at a price they want, regardless if any of those things makes any sense at all beyond their own wants.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The point of going after a pirate isn't to suddenly get them to pay, as much as to get them to stop poisoning your current paying customer pool by "teaching" them it's free.

You are a loser. for more than half a century people have been pirating and somehow now only now the whell is poisoned?

Also why are you watching a movie worth $1 if 2 hours of your life are worth more than that?

Monopolists would say anything to justify their immoral monopolies, trying to get people to pay a hundred times for the same thing over and over again you people have no shame, and when people pay they are still called thieves and scum by idiots that believe in monopolies because they didn't get more, there is no limits to the greed of the likes of you. Paying once is not enough, if you could get away with it you would charge each and every person in a room for watching the same movie, you probably charge more if the movie had a song in it and you think that is normal and fair?

Screw you, your movies and rights, I am not respecting that and I am teaching everyone how to evade those things.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Quote:

Considering that most movies are released these days is about the $15 - $18 range, and can be obtained through various services as rentals for about $1, or seen on PPV for a few dollars, price really shouldn't be an issue. If the movie isn't worth $1 to you, perhaps you should just move on. Pirating it because it's not worth it smacks of self-justification. I know what a couple of hours of my time is worth, and it's more than $1.

Here is the thing though, you people are not worth a penny let alone a buck.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

""Yes, some pirates are completely unwilling to give you money, ever. Ignore them.
-----
The point of going after a pirate isn't to suddenly get them to pay, as much as to get them to stop poisoning your current paying customer pool by "teaching" them it's free. "

It's not worth the time at this point- I'm pretty sure that everyone on-line is aware that one can get content for free. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying do nothing- send take-down notices for illegal full d/ls etc- but the bulk of the efforts should be on the consumer side)

It's like Obama trying to get support for his policies from life-long Republicans- they're not going to support him no matter how many of their ideas he incorporates into his legislation (see: Obamacare's insurance mandate, which is literally a Republican plan that the Heritage Foundation came up with in 1989).

Concentrate on building loyalty, answering customer's needs, and making it just as easy to legally access content as it is to pirate it.

Re: Re: Re:

They keep threatening to die and go away while their profits and the paychecks at the top go up, and they shaft everyone below them.

When the poor music industry gutted by "piracy" and somehow they managed to find and spend over 4 BILLION dollars for the carcass of EMI.

Then the poor movie industry gutted by "piracy" and somehow they managed to waste 270 million on 2 mars themed films that were utter crap. They blame this on people downloading and not the fact they were crap movies.
They hold onto movies forever, and do everything they can to make sure the price stays the same. They put things back into the vault, and fail to release things people WANT to pay them money for because their model doesn't support that. A huge amount of material is being "pirated" not because people want it for free, they just wanted it.

They have screamed the sky is falling over and over and over, when do we get to the part of the fairy tale where they cry wolf one more time and no one comes and the wolf finally kills them off?

While they do control, they create nothing, content people want they also specialize in making that content so onerous to access that people look for alternatives.

They are shutting down new ideas, technologies, and trying to stop society moving forward to keep their deathgrip on how it once was. If not for them getting in the way of new ideas, screaming how it is killing them, they would be dead now.

They have the power for some screwed up reason, and this is why we have to fight with them. They will inject themselves into anything they dislike and find a way where it might possibly hurt them by its mere existence and try to kill it. If you try to play by their rules, they want 99% of the money you make. If you try to work around them, your declared evil and held up in court until the money runs out, then they buy the corpse and try to use it. But its been rotting the whole time and anything left that was good is ripped out as well. They have to make the new things fail to make people think that they are the only ones making content worth anything and only their system will work.

We need them to die, it doesn't matter if you have the best idea ever... your a phone call away form having ICE ruining your entire business because it scared them. How the hell are we supposed to start something new and better when they make a phonecall and your done?

Re:

Quote:

If they are screwing it up that bad, someone will come in and replace them with a better product, at a better price, that will make economic sense for both the consumers and the sellers.
Well it just happened, it is called piracy.
Monopolists believed in their absolute power to control everything, got so comfortable that they started to gouge the public and erode rights and freedoms, now those monopolists get what they deserve and that is people doing everything in their power to undermine that authority, it doesn't matter if it is sanctioned by a government, what matters is that the majority of people just don't recognize that anymore, they don't respect it or fallow it and that should tell you everything you need to know about the subject.

My sincere wish is that post-SOPA voters will carefully research every candidate before deciding who will best represent them.
Campaign contributions are public information. Anyone who didn't like SOPA/PIPA shouldn't vote for a candidate funded by the MPAA or RIAA.

D'oh!

If you came up with a foolproof way for a manufacturer of a physical good to reduce their manufacturing and distribution costs by 99%, would the price to the customer go up or down?

If that producer has a monopoly, I would expect the price to drop only a small amount. If the demand is also perfectly inelastic (oil is pretty close to that), then the price will stay exactly the same.

The key word is monopoly. All monopolies result in high prices and in no need for a corporation to pass through any savings (whereas a competitive market would force them to).

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Who decided $9.98 was the magic number? If it was Walmart, that isn't collusion. If it was its suppliers pushing Walmart around, it might be collusion. However, I highly doubt anyone is pushing Walmart around. It's more likely the other way around.

Are all DVDs all over town (and in every other town) $9.98? If not, than that is an indication of legal competition, not illegal collusion.

Are prices mysteriously rising despite dropping distribution costs? That is a very strong sign of illegal collusion.

In short, Walmart isn't the entire marketplace. Walmart is one player in the market.

Candor is a *good* thing. IP law may not be so easy to resolve, though.

I think I should comment, firstly, that the candor represented in this article is refreshing to see, in discourse online and about the business and industy of technology - in any direct sense of the term. Not to digress into a sidebar comment, I think it's simply worthy of note for the candor in the point of view - so many, many "Yes men" around, these days, it's rare to find an honest perspective about business.

In regards to the matternof whether what is covered under "IP law" today should rightly be regarded as property or not, I think that the dissenting argument, in light of current policy, would be a difficult argument to represent, popularly, and yet I think there is a wholly valid positon to it.

I am not a lawyer. To my limited understanding, IP law today may be viewed as an extension of the same protections for "science and the useful arts" (quoting that famous phrase from the US Constitution, itself) such protections as are addressed in a number of laws with regards to patents and rights holding - such protections as existed before the more recent proliferation of digital media tehnologies. That might serve to comment to the principles of the matter, but perhaps it does not comment - in so much - to either the execution of the matter, nor to culture itself.

On that grounds, I cannot imagine that a challenge to the policy of valuing patents as property, that that policy would be likely to change (if ever) if without substabtial discussion.

Personally, I don't know if it's fair to view it as an unnaturally limiting policy - but then again, that is not to comment to the execution of ... of such actions as may be viewed as constiuting intimidation (and may be intended as such, on the parts of patent trolls - to whose personal positions, perhaps we can only guess). Intimidation only holds so much weight, though, and that weight is all in the perception of it - as some theories of self defense may seem to hold.

Of course, a discussion of cultural responses and popular points of view about IP law - that would be something else, and certainly it could be a valuable thing, in its context, in the democratic discourse of the free nation. That's my point of view, anyway ;)

Re: Candor is a *good* thing. IP law may not be so easy to resolve, though.

At least part of the problem is the phrase "Intellectual Property" itself. When most people think about property they/we automatically think of physical things like our computer, home, lawnmower, cat or dog (though then it's a challenge to determine who owns who), bar of soap and so on. Ideas/invention and expression of same in prose, poetry, film, software aren't property in any conventional sense and in fact weren't referred to that way until sometime around or shortly after 1960.

You can't build a fence around them in a real sense, you can't put alarms on them in a conventional sense. In fact in a real sense in what most people instantly think of as property they aren't. They're a legal construction having no real world existence. Their results do but by themselves they don't exist in the real world.

If you want to say there's a fence around them the fence is made up of other legal constructs like copyright and patent law. Before the Web appeared they worked reasonably well and did what they were intended to do.

Perhaps as much by coincidence as anything else, the appearance of the Web and its widespread use copyright term lengths have become unreal while what can be patented has been expanded to include things like software and business methods starting with court decisions. Software patents largely opposed by the tech industry while business methods were welcomed by those who thought they had something to sell in that area, say ISO.

Enforcement on alleged infringement began with patents and businesses we now call patent trolls. Non practicing entities who produce nothing and make nothing out of the patents they hold except for lawsuits. Then the entertainment industry started screaming about infringement which they renamed "piracy" and not only over-estimated its effects but actually refused to believe the evidence of their own balance sheets which told them the opposite.

The crash of newspapers and magazines, while related to the Web, came about for different reasons.

So the entertainment industry started on a campaign to alienate their market by filing legal actions where they could and lobbying for even more protection than copyright currently provide. They over reached, badly and brought copyright as a political issue along with them when SOPA and PIPA were proposed, with more information around ACTA and the growing resistance to TPP by Pacific Rim countries who object to what they perceive as American IP extremism.

As to TPP, two of the largest trading nations on the Pacific Rim -- China and Canada -- aren't even there which leaves a huge hole in whatever agreement they may come up with. Oh yeah, and ACTA is on a death watch.

Whatever we come up with that will replace the current regimes of copyright and patent law MUST take into account the cultural, societal and economic changes the Web has brought with it. Changes similar to though far exceeding the Industrial Revolution. These laws don't just need reform they need replacement as they address a different world.

We're now at a time where anyone can become a publisher. Many are, just look at all the blogs around the Web. All of which address real or imagined needs or just vanity.

Anyone now, can record a song at home with better gear built into the software to record it and mix it than was available even a decade ago. The analogue portion hasn't changed all that much but the digital world HAS changed how music is recorded.

Anyone can make a movie or a video if they wish to. Many try and most come up with something no better than the 8mm home movies that we boomers remember with such horror.

You get my point. For better or worse the world has changed and "rules" such as copyright and patent law have to change with them before society totally rejects them I'd have never thought of copyright as a form of prohibition. I do now. Alcohol and drug prohibition has solved nothing though they did and are arguably making the problems they were supposed to resolve worse.

It's not just lawmakers who have to come up with a sea change in terms of what copyright and patent law were intended to accomplish in a world that, in less than a decade, will probably cease to exist for all practical purposes. Keeping in mind that they were never intended to become a never ending welfare program for authors, musicians, photographers, painters, inventors, publishing companies, recording and movie studios and others. It's a sea change in outlook and expectation we all have to make. Things are possible now that never were before. Creative reach is further than it ever was. The genie is not only out of the bottle, it's gone and is giggling at us while we try to turn the clock back.

We do need a troll free discussion about this that focus's on what we want copyright and patent law to accomplish and totally redesign both, whatever we call them, to do that without regard for what that may do to legacy industries.

I despair at times that we can do that or come close to it. Then again, humans do have the surprising ability to change course in the middle of the stream before we're forced into it at times. Perhaps this is one of those times.

Re: Re: Candor is a *good* thing. IP law may not be so easy to resolve, though.

TtfnJohn, the real issue is one that is bigger than movies or music, and it's one of a social fabric problem in our society today.

Basically, we cannot have a cop on every corner, we cannot live under marshal law. The norms of society have traditionally been supported by our own understanding of right and wrong, and our own application as part of society not to break those rules. We didn't need to cop standing over our shoulder to know that stealing was bad, we just didn't steal.

There has been a huge turning point in the mentality of society as a whole. It really started to happen during the 1960s, where we went from the comparatively clean cut and homogeneous society of the 50s, and ended up with "the war", hippies, protests, the first true acceptable social use of soft drugs (weed and hash), as well as the less acceptable but tolerated use of LSD and similar drugs. Leary's "Tune in, drop out" mentality applied widely. Socially, there was a shift from group responsibility to a weird form of self determination, where the rules no longer applied for those who chose not to follow them.

Fast forward about 20 years, and look at the outbreak of what is nicely called "thug life". Street gangs have been an issue in the US since the start of the nation, but in the last 20 - 30 years, they have come not only to be an issue o f the streets, but thanks for rap music, become the mentality and the calling for a whole generation of youth. The 'hood mentality of respect, of disrespecting, and of completely ignoring the "muddafukkin' law" has greatly changed how people live. A generation ago a night out in a downtown night club might end you up getting laid or having someone puke on your shoes. Now in many places, people are getting into massive fights, getting shot, stabbed, or even killed over somebody "dissing" someone else. Societal norms would say this sort of behavior is wrong, but the cultural pressures make it right.

Because we don't have a cop on every corner, because we don't work that way, the nature of hating on the man, hating on the "po-po", and ignoring the law is a big deal. Today, the mentality is that you follow the law only when you feel you like it, and when you don't you start a rebellion of 1 against it.

Right and wrong? Long since lost in the mist. Moral stands n anything are a laughable concept. There are no morals left.

Piracy, anti-copyright movements, and all the rest that goes with it really comes down to a mentality that the individual's NEED for something is more important than any rights of those who make it. There is no " never ending welfare program for authors, musicians, photographers, painters, inventors, publishing companies, recording and movie studios and others" if nobody is actually buying the product. That people are still buying 40 year old Black Sabbath albums to me is proof that this isn't some sort of welfare state. If nobody was buying, if nobody was consuming, they wouldn't get paid. Your mentality here seems to be a bit of self-justification for your own choices.

For me, it's no different than the widespread graffiti out there. There isn't any moral issue about defacing someone else's property, rather, it's a badge of honor to do it. It's a myopic self-important view of life that is destructive and much of the root cause of the issues we face today. We cannot seem to accept that others might have rights as well, only that it is possible for us to do X or Y or Z, and that is where it all stops.

As for the "troll free discussion about this", you have to understand that "troll" is really mostly just a term used to describe people we don't agree with. Part of the problem of the generational mentality of "are you disrespecting me?" is that it's harder for people to accept alternate points of view. Discussions are troll free when you accept that there is no one true answer for these things. There is no absolute right or absolute wrong. You have to learn respect for the other people and you have to earn it.

Techdirt is a great example of what happens when you have people who have no respect for each other, talking at each other instead of with each other. It's a discussion that vilifies anyone who doesn't agree with the "FREE!", anti-copuright, anti-patent view. Anyone who has the balls to not agree is immediately a troll. That is the death of discussion, and the start of street fighting. It explains a lot, really.

Re: Re: Re: Candor is a *good* thing. IP law may not be so easy to resolve, though.

Quote:

For me, it's no different than the widespread graffiti out there. There isn't any moral issue about defacing someone else's property, rather, it's a badge of honor to do it. It's a myopic self-important view of life that is destructive and much of the root cause of the issues we face today. We cannot seem to accept that others might have rights as well, only that it is possible for us to do X or Y or Z, and that is where it all stops.

For me is an honor to defile copyrights and make it useless and the reason is simple, life plus 95 years is not an incentive is welfare, not only that it also locks up, culture and knowledge out of the hands of people who could use it to do something else, further it create an entire class of parasites that do nothing else except try to make others pay rent for work done decades ago when nobody else inside society get to do that and if they tried they would be laughed at and now that you idiots are being ridiculed for being that stupid you get mad?

Today people are waking up to the fact that some laws should never have been enacted in the first place and if you don't like that people ignore those laws well I want to see you try to enforce them LoL

quote:
"Nope I decide whatever I want, I am the one with the power to rip you off, I am the one with the money you want, I am the one setting the rules not you and not the government, no matter how much you moan about it, I am in control here you are not."

Actually the rules are already set, and you are just breaking them.
Secondly, you didn't actually refer to the point a couple of us made.
You are doing nothing new. You are taking music or movies without paying the asking price.
People have been doing that since movies and records were invented.
The only difference is you hide behind a movement claiming to be forging a new direction. To forge a new direction more quickly and more decisively you'd be better off persuading people to follow you by creating better free content and thereby abandoning and bypassing the traditional entertainment industries.

Re:

If by rules you mean outdated laws that don't reflect reality well I don't think many people care about those, they got the power to do it and they will do it, no matte how much you complain about it, you don't have the power to stop it and no government in the planet has it also, isn't that marvelous?

I don't see why I should pay you for work that you did in the past, I don't get paid for work I did last year why should you?

You better of trying to work for a change instead of being a parasite trying to suck the blood out of others.

Re: Re:

quote;" I don't see why I should pay you for work that you did in the past, I don't get paid for work I did last year why should you?"

OK, my new single just came out. You downloaded it (illegally of course). How is that "work I did last year".
In all honestly you have no clue when the work was created, so it just becomes an excuse you made up for yourself.

quote: "You better of trying to work for a change instead of being a parasite trying to suck the blood out of others."

LOL, again, the hypocrisy is astounding.
I made a new record. I decide I need to sell it to pay my bills.
People like you take it without permission or payment and somehow think YOU AREN'T parasites sucking the blood of others?

Re: Re: Re:

Quote:

OK, my new single just came out. You downloaded it (illegally of course). How is that "work I did last year".
In all honestly you have no clue when the work was created, so it just becomes an excuse you made up for yourself.

It doesn't matter, your venues of income should be the ones that you are directly involved if anybody use that crap of yours to produce something else they should be free to do it and if they profit from it and do a better job at it than you that is their work right there and they earned you didn't, you be more than welcome to do a better job and attract people to your distribution channels without the power to stop others with the added advantage that anything that others did right you can straight out rip off and use yourself to increase your appeal to the masses.

It works great for open source are you not capable of beating the dudes that live in the basement in their parents home?

And yes I take it without permission just like you do everyday.

Did you ask permission to use the instruments you use? nope than you are a thief aren't you?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

quote:
"And yes I take it without permission just like you do everyday.
Did you ask permission to use the instruments you use? nope than you are a thief aren't you?"

Huh? How do you figure that out?
I use music software that is all paid for. In the process of buying it I'm actually given specific permission to use it by the maker.
Same goes with my hardware. It's bought and paid for, and my money goes towards sustaining the makers of the instruments.
The only person letting the chain down is you.

Re: Re: Re:

OK, my new single just came out. You downloaded it (illegally of course).

Was your single played on the radio? If it was, I could easily have legally taped it and added it to my collection. But taping is a klunky solution, downloading gives the same end result, yet somehow is illegal.

Did you or your label upload your single to Youtube or Veoh? Again, I could've watched it there, ripped the audio, and added it to my collection. The end result is the same as if I downloaded it from a torrent.

I made a new record. I decide I need to sell it to pay my bills.

You don't get to decide the price. The market does that. The market is telling you that trying to sell recorded music doesn't work as well as it used to, and may not work at all.

Just because I make something, doesn't mean I automatically get what I think it is worth. Someone has to be willing to pay for it.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Was your single played on the radio? If it was, I could easily have legally taped it and added it to my collection. But taping is a klunky solution, downloading gives the same end result, yet somehow is illegal."

The radio taped version is (a) poorer quality than the real product, and (b) was paid for by your attention to listen to the ads on the radio to start with.

The difference is night and day, unless of course you are trying to justify piracy.

Re:

How can somebody ask for money without performing the music?

Could a carpenter go around telling other to pay him for copying his style?

Of course not, but somehow you think that if someone goes to a club and performs music you wrote you are entitled to a piece of his work?
You are a parasite that is really what musicians complaining about piracy are.

They are the ones that can't handle that others could possibly do better than they did.

If copyright was applied to football it would be just horrible for the sport, can you imagine one club suing the other because they used the same plays to win some game?

I guess this is societies fault for allowing those monopolies to be granted for so long, not anymore though.

quote "That is just it, I don't need your permission to do anything, you don't have the ability to stop me or anybody from pirating anything.'

Sure.
I just answered your question though.
All my tools are paid for and I have permissions from all their creators.
Your entertainment is neither paid for nor has the permission of the creator.
You're not forced to buy my music, you can download a free artists music, where you have that artists permission.
So who is the parasite?
Clue: "a person who receives advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return."

Re:

Yah sure, you paid them royalties every time you make a dime right?

If not I too got all my entertainment paid for at least once, besides people pay for entertainment when they go out to shop or to a restaurant, or in the gym they already paid for it once why do it again?

Most people ven paid for entertainment when they bought and HDD which in several countries including the US comes with a levy.

So you made electronics and others business all the more expensive and you want more?

You don't give the proper return and expect others to give you?

What do you think people are? your pocket where you can reach in any time you like and take out money?

Re:

I don't need to pay you anything, you can't force me to do it.

I don't get nothing from you, why should I give you anything?
The only thing you give me is grief.

Every time I go out for dinner somewhere I pay you, every time I am at the gym I pay you, every time a buy a new HDD or printer or another electronic that is deemed capable of making some sort of copy I pay you, but that is not enough is it, I need to pay you when I am in the bathroom and probably at a different rate because the bathroom is something more intimate and it would be unbearable for me to take a dump in the silence.

As I see it, I already paid for multiple times already why should I give you any more?

I don't even like you and still I get ripped off by people like you in every aspect of my life, well that is just it, I am giving it back to you the same courtesy you extend to me and the rest of society, lets see if you like that.

Do you pay royalties for every use of that software and hardware?
Do you pay royalties to the writers of the software? to the engineers of the hardware?
Do they have collection agencies going after your business for making use of their software and hardware and demanding payment for every use and basing their calculations on your income?
That is ridiculous right,i.

What is ridiculous is you suggesting you pay me every time you play my music in your home or car. Of course you don't.
You buy the track, then you can play it in different places, as many times as you like without paying anyone. I'm still listening to my old 12" vinyl from 1984. I haven't paid anyone a cent since the day I bought it at the record store.

Re:

Of course it is ridiculous and so is me having to pay royalties every time I go out to eat, on the gym, when I buy an HDD or a blank CD.

If I bought an album would I be able to open a rental store from it? of course not, but I can do that with computers, cars, planes and all sorts of others goods but apparently music is more special than all that other stuff and it is more hard to make music than a plane right? or design a microchip right?

Could I buy music and use it in my store for free?
Of course not, but I can buy a car and use it as a cab and I don't have to pay royalties to the manufacturer how odd.

If I buy a car and use it in a music clip do I need to pay royalties to the car manufacturer?
Nope but somehow if I bought music and use in a video that I then uploaded to Youtube suddenly I must pay royalties.

Re:

Of course I can, I can even get it for free, I also can buy a bus for a hundred bucks and transform it into an RV. Which I have to pay zero royalties to the manufacturer of it, who by the way spent billions in R&D and someone paid just a fraction of that cost and I paid even less for it.

You don't think it costs money to convert a bus?
Then it costs nothing to maintain it over the years? My car has cost me several thousand a year.
Meanwhile you can listen to Louis Armstrong from the 1930's with one single payment.. and still be listening to the same recording free of charge in 50 years time.
That's why music is special.
A $1.99 song can give you continuous entertainment for 50+ years.
I still listen to albums I bought in 1973. FREE, once I made the initial purchase.

Re:

How do you listen to Louis armstrong from the 30's without a player do you believe they are cheap?

Everything cost something to maintain, didn't your notice that yet and still I don't have to pay royalties to bus makers, or house makers or any other maker except apparently to special artists that are so graced and wonderful as to have been granted solely that kind of privilege.

$1.99 doesn't cover the cost of my iPod, my computer or any other equipment I will need to play that stuff, you won't to play this kind of game so lets start adding costs to everything and see where we can go with it.

And after that I can't still make a rental store or use it in a video, or modify it and sell it without having to pay the parasite that believes he should have a cut off of my own work for which he didn't contribute anything besides a tool.

Re: Re:

The AC you are replying to doesn't create any content, he parasites off of those who do. and the only reason why he gets monopoly privileges is due to the revolving door problem with politicians. These laws aren't passed for the public interest, politicians and corporations engage in revolving door behavior to serve their own personal interests and those interests involve passing laws that are bad for society.

It's called progress. No-one said it would be pretty.

How publishers keep making the same mistakes the recording industry did is mind boggling.

I find it affirming of my view, not mind-boggling.

It affirms my view that their 2nd-millenium business model, based on 2nd-millenium principles and 2nd-millenium realities is crude, obsolete and outdated in the 3rd millenium. That business model is maladapted to the realities of the 3rd millennium and needs to be replaced completely (not just its adherents like the **aa's et al).

Pedaling is pedaling. Each and every one of them is in it for the bucks. Does anyone actually believe that music industry executives give a flying fuck about the art of music or the quality of recording and reproduction (except as it affects sales)? They only care about accumulating wealth.

Greed and a reluctance to adapt (which fall under broad category of "human nature") is the underlying problem. Everything else is secondary.

Only generational replacement can fix this. And eventually whatever replaces it will become obsolete and will struggle until dead. And so on ...

@Techdolts

Speaking of 3rd parties...

"These two stories should remind those of us in the US that our votes really do matter, and we have an election coming up in about six months. So don't waste your vote on someone who doesn't get it, and don't waste your vote on the "least bad" major candidate. Vote for someone who respresents your values, even if you have to write them in. That will really start scaring those politicians and their whole parties."

I think this is where I put forward the largest 3rd party in the US, the Green Party. We don't take corporate donations. http://gp.org/index.php

From the US GP platform:

"The Green Party opposes patenting or copyrighting life- forms, algorithms, DNA, colors or commonly-used words and phrases. We support broad interpretation and ultimate expansion of the Fair Use of copyrighted works. We support open source and copyleft models in order to promote the public interest and the spirit of copyright."

There's not much else about copyright, except discussion of software patents vs. software copyrights. The expected anti-monopoly, anti-corporation language permeates the platform too, as well as a call for clean elections, getting big $$ & $$ lobbyists out of politics, and the use of the public airwaves/broadcast spectrum for public benefit, not solely for private profit. It doesn't go into much detail about other issues that pop up here.

Sorry to inject a partisan note into this discussion, but since it was brought up I figure it's kosher. Carry on.